1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
worty [1.4K]
4 years ago
11

Who had the better system of citizenship, the athenians or the romans

History
2 answers:
OleMash [197]4 years ago
7 0
Hope this helps...

Athenians and Romans are two words encompassing different times, spaces and political objectives. The word "citizenship" means different things for either at different times.
As for the word "better", needless to say one would have to state, fore and foremost: for whom.

Athens is an intelligence powerhouse between the VI and the IV Century BC. It virtually disappears after that under the heel of the Macedonians and the Romans.

Rome is a logistic and engineering forge between the VIII Century BC and the IV Century AD.
Their statutes were obviously very different as different were their needs and political objectives .

As for the "better system" you can rest assured that in both cases, whatever institutions they chose, they were best for themselves.

The very notion of "citizenship" was local in Athens (in Pericles time). If you lived in the city, had sufficient means and showed up in the Agora you could vote. There never were in Athens the hundreds of thousands inhabitants that peopled Rome at the highest of the Empire (II century AD).

Athens never had an Empire. Even the one allegedly created by Alexander never was one in the sense we give to the word today. Greeks colonies were independent political units often at odds with the mother country. There were no political links between them, as there were no links between the kingdoms conquered by Alexander. An Athenian was an Athenian if he lived in Athens.
A Roman citizen could live in Rumania and claim "Civis Romanus Sum". Paul did when he was captured on his way to Damascus.

Yet, this did not mean that he could vote for the Roman Senate. He couldn't even if he lived in Rome. In fact the Empire had done away with any formal popular vote that could never be implemented.

In conclusion, the answer to your question is: let's not make cronological errors. Citizenship means to us a combination of allegiance and rights. This combination might have existed in Athens and Rome (it did), but it was not guaranteed by an institution, allegiances were different over different territories and rights could change, in both places, with time and with the whims of the ruler

DanielleElmas [232]4 years ago
3 0

Answer:

Romans did.

..I think hh

You might be interested in
Why did Jefferson threaten that if France occupied New Orleans the United States would ally itself with Britain?
jolli1 [7]

Answer:

Jefferson rights to the Louisiana Purchase

Explanation:

Napoleon sold the Louisiana Territory for $15 million to two envoys Jefferson had sent (to buy New Orleans for $10 million). ... Jefferson faced the war between France and Britain that was destroying American ships

4 0
3 years ago
What was the historical significance of the edict of milan.
liberstina [14]

Edict of Milan, proclamation that permanently <em>established religious toleration for Christianity within the Roman Empire. </em>

Thus caused Christianity to be legal and aceepted.

Along with any other religions, especially Christianity.

It claims that tolerace must be had for other religions.

It was the outcome of a political agreement concluded in Mediolanum (modern Milan) between the Roman emperors Constantine I and Licinius in February 313.

I HOPE THIS HELPS!

<3

6 0
2 years ago
Which statement does NOT describe a difference between the Confederate Constitution and the U.S. Constitution? A. The Confederat
Lina20 [59]
C. The confederate constitution did not allow for multiple political parties.
7 0
3 years ago
Segregation now segregation tomorrow segregation forever, what does this phrase mean?
Troyanec [42]

Answer:

The answer is stated below.

Explanation:

"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" is the phrase from the famous speech of George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Address. On becoming the Governor of Alabama in the same year he opposed the federal government's efforts to end the segregationist laws. His staunch stand gained him huge popularity from those who challenged the enforcement of civil rights granted to African American.

3 0
3 years ago
What was the period in Japan's history in the late 19th century when imperial rule was restored known as?
slavikrds [6]
The answer is Meiji period also known as Meiji Restoration.


This was a major event in Japanese history that restored the Imperial rule over all of Japan. It is named after the Emperor Meiji.

The <span>Meiji period is usually defined between 1868 - 1912 which also saw nation-wide social and economic reforms.</span>

The <span>Meiji period was critical in bringing advanced learning and scientific knowledge to the Japanese society.</span>



6 0
4 years ago
Other questions:
  • Help me with 1, 3, and 5 I'll try to give u brainliest answer
    10·1 answer
  • Did the US join the League of Nations following WWI?
    13·1 answer
  • Why did Pakistan refuse India’s aid after the October 2005 earthquake?
    8·1 answer
  • In the conflict between the Cherokees and the United States, what did the us government want to acheive
    7·1 answer
  • In most cases involving judicial review, the courts have
    9·1 answer
  • What events caused the unification of Italy? explain what happened
    7·1 answer
  • Why might a citizen join a political party
    5·1 answer
  • Plzzzzzz help for a brainly
    8·2 answers
  • Which showed that the economy was weaker than the stock market indicated during the 1920s?
    14·2 answers
  • PLZ HELPPP<br> How would a anti federalist (Robert Yates)respond to a federalist
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!